Open Letter in support of my investigation of trachea transplants in Germany, by Rafael Cantera

Below a support letter by Rafael Cantera, professor of zoology at the University of Stockholm in Sweden, addressed to the leadership of the University Clinic Würzburg. This is because two professors of this German university, Thorsten Walles and Heike Mertsching (now Walles) chose to respond to my inquiries about their earlier trachea transplants made from pig intestine (see my detailed report here) with lawyers’ financial blackmail and right after, with court actions, which had me sentenced guilty with a threat of a prison term of 6 months, without my prior knowledge (see case description here). Such are the peculiarities of German law: internet bloggers are basically legally defined here by default as criminals, and professors as infallible and divine beings (in fact, even Walleses’ former boss and collaborator Paolo Macchiarini is still a protected adjunct professor at their former common place of work, the Medical University Hannover). I received lots of support from my readers, and was also invited to give an interview with the French magazine Mediapart (German version here). Now, I am deeply grateful to Prof. Cantera for his support, and hope other international and maybe even German academics join in and sign below.

A conspiracy of German institutions against freedom of information

The Walleses even admitted to their judge in Würzburg that they did receive my questions in advance, but chose not to reply to them. They instead even revealed to the court their immediate intentions to find out my private address and had me slapped with a costly court injunction and a threat of a prison term, from the very beginning. The judge however apparently saw my act of asking inconvenient questions alone as an act of blasphemy against German professors. The only evidence against me which this Würzburg regional court judge actually bothered to scrutinise was the Walleses’ academic employment situation and their current applications to new professorships. That “evidence” fully sufficed to declare me guilty of slanderous libel against two German professors, what I actually wrote about their trachea transplants on my site was utterly irrelevant in this context. It was enough that the Walleses did not like it.

While they and their pricey lawyer prepared this legal attack on basic freedoms of speech and press, their employers, the University of Würzburg and the Fraunhofer Institute for Interfacial Engineering and Biotechnology in Stuttgart, repeatedly refused to answer any of my questions regarding those 3 tracheal transplants, even when requested to do so under legally binding freedom of information law. Most recently, I asked the Fraunhofer institute to explain if any animal testing at all was performed before their researcher Heike Walles delivered in 2007 and 2009 pig-intestine-derived tracheal grafts which her husband then implanted into two patients. The internet biomedical portal PubMed suggests that to the very least, no animal experiments at all were published by the Walleses in this regard, before or after the method was initially first tested on a human patient together with Macchiarini in Hannover in 2004.

Update 23.01.2017: The Fraunhofer Institute admitted that no animal testing was deemed necessary prior to two patient transplants. Details here.

Instead answering my questions, the University Clinic of Würzburg allowed their two professors to use these affiliations to suggest that they were actually acting in court against me as representatives of the entire University Clinic. It went as far that both the University and the University Clinic Würzburg refused to even acknowledge receiving my administrative complaints about their two professors, never mind processing those. My freedom of information inquiries to the German Ministry of Education and Research and the medicinal product watchdog Paul-Ehrlich-Institut about the Walles’ ministry-funded clinical trial and about the approvals for their previous trachea transplants, are as yet unanswered, even after the legally binding time period of one month to deliver a reply has long expired. It is none of nosy public’s business if human experiments in German research institutions (with none of the affected patients being currently alive) were ever properly approved or, if indeed these experiments actually still take place or are being prepared. The status of the aforementioned federally-funded multi-patient clinical trial with pig intestine-made trachea is confidential and not for us to know. If you want to speak of academic conspiracy in Germany, here is a big and a highly unsavoury one.

In fact, the Walles’ lawyer just sent me another threatening letter, demanding of me to accept the court injunction, pay his clients an unspecified compensation damage and him around €1800 lawyer’s fee.

Don’t you dare ask questions about their trachea transplants, or you’ll go to prison. These are two German professors and the law is on their side. Thorsten and Heike Walles, image source: University of Würzburg.

Open Letter in support of Schneider’s investigation of trachea transplants in Germany, by Rafael Cantera

For months I’ve been reading in the Swedish press as well as on Leonid Schneider’s blog For Better Science many notes about the scandalous trachea transplantations on human patients in which Dr. Paolo Macchiarini has been involved and for which he’s been, and is still investigated in Sweden. This was an extraordinary scandal for the Karolinska Institute and the Karolinska University Hospital; it has already resulted in several resignations and investigations, including a police investigation of Macchiarini himself. Fortunately, the Swedish authorities and academy adopted an open, self-critical and transparent reaction and in due process questions from journalists were answered, documents were made public, investigations were initiated and conclusions were reported to the public. For his fantastic journalistic investigation of this story “of fraudulent research” that “revealed life-threatening ambition in the academic world” the Swedish journalist Bo Lindquist was awarded the Swedish Grand Prize for Journalism in 2016.

In spite of that, according to the Swedish press and academic colleagues of mine in Sweden and other countries this scandal might have negative, perhaps long-lasting consequences on the public trust and confidence in science and medicine and so, in my opinion, it deserves to be investigated to the last link and detail. If the public trust is to be restored, every trachea transplantation in which Macchiarini and his collaborators were directly or indirectly involved should be investigated and the results must be clearly and openly reported to the public. In doing so, which as a scientist I think is necessary and important, Leonid Schneider started to investigate the activities of the German professors Heike and Thorsten Walles, who were also involved in trachea transplantations and had professional links to Macchiarini and his activities (primarily: Macchiarini et al 2004 and Walles et al, 2004).

Now, after reading about the court trial in Bavaria against Leonid Schneider, I have the unpleasant feeling that it is perhaps the intent to punish him for his investigations and to avoid further investigations of possible misconduct in German universities regarding Macchiarini-related trachea transplantations. This feeling will be supported if it was correct, I as was told, that both research institutions involved, namely the Fraunhofer Society and the University of Würzburg refused to answer questions regarding the two experimental trachea transplants on human patients they performed and later on published (Mertsching et al 2009 and Steinke et al, 2015 ). Moreover, it appears that Professors Walles acted apparently with full approval of their academic employer by using their academic affiliations with the University Clinic Würzburg. The outcome was a court injunction passed in absentia against Leonid Schneider forbidding him to state facts which Professors Walles themselves had been repeating often and widely just some years ago in interviews, press releases, books and research publications.

Leonid Schneider can count with my support and I hope you will also help him in his important investigation, answering his questions and providing as much information as you can disclose.

Yours sincerely,

Rafael Cantera, PhD

Professor

Zoology Institute, Stockholm University

Stockholm, Sweden

Dear readers, If you wish to express your support as well, please comment with your full name and institutional affiliation below.

If you would like to support my court litigation financially, donation amount doesn’t matter, please go to my Patreon site or contact me.

Donate!

If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!

€5.00

Update 4.02.2017. The signatories of this letter have been subjected to an “alternative facts” campaign by Walles’ employee Jan Hansmann. Details here.

Living in the British Isles, I was very aware of how important investigative journalism was in unmasking Andrew Wakefield, which proved beyond the powers of the academic establishment, despite their commitment to research transparency. Legal and professional action could only follow when journalists placed the full facts in the public domain. We have also had attempts by homeopaths to use the law to gag those researchers who discovered their treatments did not work. Leonid Schneider is currently asking questions which, to my knowledge, have not been answered. Germany knows better than many countries about the danger of allowing legal procedure to hide wrongdoing. I hope that will not be the case here
Dr David Foreman FRCPsych FRCPCH
King’s College London
(this comment was made in a personal capacity)

I agree entirely with Professor Cantera. There is much that is hidden about this work and in the interests of medical ethics and the trust of the public in science and medicine it is important that bright sunlight is allowed to shine in the many dark corners in the different countries (not just Germany and Sweden) involved in this disgraceful saga.

Professor David G Fernig
Professor of Biological Chemistry
Department of Biochemistry
Institute of Integrative Biology
University of Liverpool
Liverpool, UK

I am not a Professor, but a Pharmacist working in UK and everyday I have to check prescriptions and advice patients. I can see many useful drugs in the shelves of the pharmacies what corresponds to brilliant science work by many several different scientists. For these reasons I believe it is important to shed light in cases like the Walles and many others around the world.
I believe Leonid is doing a wonderful job not only for the sake of science but also for the sake of patient’s good health and must be fully supported in his endeavours

Let’s be clear. This is a case of an independent journalist who is threatened with imprisonment and/or financial ruin for repeating facts already in the public domain. As a historian and as someone who tries to be a decent human being, such a situation scares the hell out of me. Is Germany becoming some sort of tin-pot dictatorship, in which justice belongs to the rich and powerful while ordinary citizens are unprotected? Wait and see.
Faye Getz, Ph.D.
Independent Historian
Somewhere in Rhode Island
USA

I strongly support Dr. Cantera’s initiative to denounce the violation of freedom of speak of Dr. Schneider, that apparently the german govement grants to scientist according to unknown and obscure criteria. I regard this verdict as highly undemocratic, fascist, and absolutely unacceptable.

SIGNED: Ana M. Rojas
Head of Comptuational Biology and Bioinformatics Group
Institute of Biomedicine of Seville, Spain.

The act of the Walles, possibly supported by their university, is to be condemned as not only incompatible with, but as wholly contrary to basic academic principles of minimal decency. It moreover serves neither to clear the Walles of suspicion och research fraud and/or serious research ethical breach, nor to save the reputation of their employer – quite the contrary. had the Walles and the university of Würzburg had any honest intent of clearing up whatever faults may in the past have been committed and to clear themselves of false accusation, they should long ago have invited open critical inquiry. The move to scare, or force by financial pressure, Leonid Schneider to relate already publicly available information about this case is nothing but shameful.

Christian Munthe
Professor of practical philosophy, specialising in bioethics and the ethics of science & technology
University of Gothenburg
Sweden

I fully support Leonid Schneider in his important investigation of the tracheal regeneration scandal. It is unbelivable that these life threatning experiments have been and still are supported with research funding in Germany, UK and EU in general.
Morten Oksvold
Research scientist
Oslo University Hospital, Norway.

I fully support Professor Cantera’s letter. To understand how these experiments were allowed to be performed on human patients in the absence of any safety and efficacy data from animal studies, it is important to investigate all of the tracheal transplantations involving Macchiarini and his collaborators. Hopefully, by identifying the flaws/loop-holes in our current systems that permitted this to happen, it will be possible to implement measures to prevent similar things from happening again. Thanks to investigative journalists such as Bo Lindquist and Leonid Schneider for bringing these stories to light.

I am sorry to see that Leonid is let down by the german academic system (no german scientist reading and supporting this?!?). A sad state for research when not even higher academic (Uni Würzburg and Fraunhofer IGB) or political (BMBF) institutions in Germany are willing to support scientific transparency, morality and openness.
Keep up the good work, Leonid.

I fully support Professor Cantera’s letter and the freedom of Leonid Schneider to do his inquiries. The key point is that the truth finally emerge from these complex affairs. Previous experiences have shown that we cannot trust academic institutions to provide the information, investigative journalists can play an important role.
Bruno Lemaitre
Global Health Insitute
EPFL Lausanne,

I strongly support this letter by Rafael Cantera. Leonid Schneider has done a very important work to promote transparency, honesty and fairness in science. Academia is in great need of people who take on these tasks, which are neither paid, nor always rewarded.
The Macchiarini scandal has severely wounded the trust of the general public in science and it is utterly important that there are scientists who. like Leonid Schneider, stand up for the principles that should guide science. The scientific community should be very grateful for his job.
Agnes Wold
Professor, senior consultant
Clinical Bacteriology
The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Thanks for writing this letter. I am happy to add my full support against the intimidation of Leonid Schneider and the diligent and careful work he is doing on behalf of scientific integrity. Shooting the messenger adds even more legitimacy to the idea that this needs even more investigation.

I stand with Professor Cantera in support of Leonid Schneider. The court action is scandalous and cowardly. For the interests of future patients and good science, the trachael transplantations concerned must be openly investigated.
Dr Tristram Wyatt
Kellogg College
University of Oxford, UK

Freedom of Speech, freedom of investigation, freedom of blogging, freedom of journalism should be protected -more so at such times when they are being threatened.
Bishal Gyawali
PhD scholar at Nagoya University, Japan.

While I am not trained in medicine and do not know the case of Macchiarini or the Walleses in detail, I am a strong supporter of the idea that science should be an open endeavour. All science should be open to further scrutiny, not least when people’s health or lives are at stake. Therefore I strongly support this call to support Leonid Schneider and his investigation and find the apparent methods of legally punishing him for merely repeating statements already made in public completely outrageous.

Thomas Arildsen
Associate Professor in Signal Processing at Aalborg University

I strongly support the letter by Rafael Cantera, the work of Leonid Schneider, fair trials, the right to defend yourself, and freedom of speech, no country can impose silence.
Graziella Pellegrini
Professor of Applied Biology
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
Modena, Italy

I also fully support Professor Cantera’s letter and acknowledge the importance of Leonid Schneider in promoting transparency in science. Leonid Schneider deserves the right to defend himself, hopefully, these charges will be dropped. Nobody deserves to be punished for exposing such illicit and dubious ‘science’. Keep up the good work Leonid Schneider.

I also fully support Professor Cantera’s letter. I am shocked that the trial against Leonid Schneider was conducted in his absence and that his requests for relevant information were denied, despite being made under legally binding freedom of information laws.

Science seeks to advance our knowledge and understanding, but this goal will be derailed if we cannot act with transparency and integrity.

Sincerely,

William Cawthorn
Chancellor’s Fellow and MRC Career Development Fellow
University/BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science
The Queen’s Medical Research Institute
The University of Edinburgh, UK
Edinburgh, EH16 4TJW.Cawthorn@ed.ac.uk
Twitter: @MATscientists
Web: Edinburgh Research Explorer

Science is only “self-correcting” if we allow members of the scientific community, and the broader public, the freedom to discuss theories, techniques, findings, and ethical implications. Legal attempts to chill such open discussion are a strike against the organized skepticism which is essential to good science.

I cosign Prof. Cantera’s letter.

Janet D. Stemwedel
Department of Philosophy
San Jose State University
San Jose, California, USA

“It is remarkable that a University should have recourse to legal threats against a journalist who is requesting information.
Such behaviour is likely to have the opposite effect from that intended, by drawing attention to the dispute and by damaging the reputation of the University.
Dorothy Bishop”

I have read the letter and would like to support the notion that all science should be open and questioned and scrutinised. To be against this scrutiny is to be against the idea of science – that it has a logical system of examining the world. No scientist is above scrutiny, nor should they wish to be.

I fully support Professor Cantera’s letter and Leonid Schneider’s excellent work covering the tracheal transplantation scandal. Good quality science requires transparency and critical investigation. The court case against Leonid Schneider frontally attacks both of these fundamental prerequisites, apart from seemingly violating the defendant’s basic rights to defend himself in court.

Critically questioning scientific findings and medical acts is part of the scientific method, and discussing this in public is a matter of freedom of speech. There I agree with Professor Cantera that Leonid Schneider’s investigations should not be blocked by a court trial.

As a German having been working in research outside of Germany for many years, I am shocked by how this is handled by the German authorities. I hereby wish to express my support to Leonid Schneider.
Ionas Erb
Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG),
The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology
C\ Dr Aiguader, 88
08003 Barcelona, Spain

I strongly support this open letter. That this court injunction could have passed without hearing Leonid Schneider first, is almost unbelievable. If that’s all legally in order it gives people/institutions way too much room to silence critics in my opinion.

While I do not necessarily agree with Schneider’s interpretation of the Germany legal and university system, the legal response seems indeed grossly disproportionate. My understanding is that Schneider merely repeated what was reported by the author Bernhard Albrecht, whom Thorsten Walles had endorsed. That Walles was intimately associated with Macchiarini, and that Macchiarini is a scientific charlatan who has caused both science and his patients great harm are facts. One can only hope that Walles has since distanced himself from Macchiarini.
Prof. Dr. Detlef Weigel
Director
Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology,
Tübingen, Germany

Count me in.
Benjamin Schwessinger PhD.
Discovery Early Career Research Award Fellow
Rathjen Lab
Division of Plant Science
Research School of Biology
College of Medicine, Biology, and Environment
Linnaeus Building (134), Linnaeus Way
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia

I strongly support Professor Cantera’s letter and Leonid Schneider’s right to report these issues. We have a duty to humanity to be open and transparent on these issues.
Laura Machesky FRSE, FMedSci
Professor of Cell Biology
CRUK Beatson Institute Glasgow
University College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
Garscube Estate, Switchback Rd. Bearsden, Glasgow, G61 1BD

I support Prof. Cantera’s letter. I hope that the University Clinic Würzburg will perform a full investigation on the ethical issues surrounding the trachea transplants and will reconsider their role in the court case against Leonid Schneider.

Along with Dr. Cantera, I fully support the open and unbiased investigation into ethical concerns surrounding the work of Dr. Macchiarini and participating colleagues, whether from Sweden, Germany or elsewhere. Leonid Schneider and other journalists must be encouraged to ask questions and report in order to maintain scientific trust and transparency.

Science and ethics both rely totally on open discussion. The issues described here urgently need to be examined and discussed in the broad light of day. Not doing so openly is an abnegation of ethics and of scientific truth – everyone needs to do better.

It is extremely important that the University of Wuerzburg investigates these allegations. If these transplants were done in the Macchiarini way, without robust preclinical investigations, there is a serious problem which should not be covered up.
Responding to Leonid Schneider’s investigations with a law suit is an incredible move which is highly detrimental to the trust in science.

As a former academic in America and Germany and the current managing editor of a German-based scientific journal, I personally fully support the letter by Rafael Cantera and the important work of Leonid Schneider.

I strongly support Leonid Schneider who is doing an important and difficult task of investigative science journalism. I do believe in law and, therefore, I think that if Leonid was wrongly accused in the court, the case should be fought back in the court. The scientific online community can be asked to support this case by crowd-sourcing to fund a good lawyer and/or by contributing direct legal support.
Dr Vladimir Teif,
University of Essex

Openness and transparency are core values of science. An in absentia court injunction to suppress public domain knowledge is ridiculous. The course of action is a shame for the German court and the University Clinic of Würzburg and should be corrected as soon as possible.

I am adding my support as well.
Open, even critical, fact-based assessments of biomedical science are vital and threats against transparency must be countered.
Paul Knoepfler
UC Davis School of Medicine
Sacramento, CA USA

I fully support the investigantional journalism of Leonid Schneider, transparent and evidence-based science, and reject the attempts of all individuals and institutions acting in opposite manner.
Tomo Saric
Center for Physiology and Pathophysiology
University of Cologne, Germany

It is distressing to read about attempt to suppress information in this manner. It is not the first time I’ve seen misbehaving scientists use the courts to stifle academic discourse. We must stand against this in these dangerous times.

I support the letter of Prof. Cantera. It is deeply troubling when science becomes mixed with litigation in this manner. A Court injunction to suppress information that is already in the public domain is both self-serving and absurd.

I wish to express my support for Leonid Schneider’s investigative journalism. I may not always agree with his stridency but his motives in exposing corrupt and illegal scientific practices are entirely praiseworthy.
I think it is morally reprehensible for academics and academic institutions to sic lawyers and threats on journalists. Both our professions deal with truth and the freedom of speech is the truth’s surest defence.

I am not familiar with the details of this case and I cannot comment on the merits of the various claims and counterclaims. However, I am concerned that the involvement of the courts is a disproportionate and heavy-handed response to the rather anodyne text in a blogpost. Whatever the merits of this case may be, involvement of the courts is bound to have a chilling effect on independent journalism. Professors Walles would have been far better off to post their detailed rebuttal, in English, on a website rather than making it public indirectly via a court judgement. I support Rafael Cantera’s letter.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky
Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow
School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute
University of Bristol
12A Priory Road
Bristol BS8 1TU
United Kingdom
Twitter: @STWorg

We all like to read reports on scientific advances that have been made but critical writing by science journalists is equally important. Please, count me in.
Prof. Dr. Joern Bullerdiek,
Human Genetics,
University of Bremen, Germany

As scientists we have the obligation to know if scientific data made public are correct or not, consequently demanding the greatest effort of all involved parties, responsible scientists and their employers and employees, to give access to all the information. Only this type of openess and good disposition can guarantee that us, the scientific community, and the general public reach the right conclusions. Quite different from how this particular situation was handled in Sweeden, the German suspected parties do not seem to be reacting in an open and constructive way. Quite on the contrary, instead of contributing to help Leonid Schneider´s efforts to bring light into this most deplorable (pseudo) medical matter, his work is being endangered by most indign actions from the investigated scientists, with the shameful suppòrt of the University Clinic of Würzburg´s authorities. As scientist I cannot but fully support Dr. Schneider´s quest on this matter and hope that University Hospital German authorities correct their (corporative) course of action and facilitate this investigation.
Carlos Dotti,
Profesor de Investigación
Centro de Biología Molecular Severo Ochoa,
Madrid, Spain.

I also support Rafael Cantera’s open letter above, and also the very important work of Leonid Schneider against research fraud and misconduct – upholding the virtues of scientific endeavour
Ian Collinson PhD FRSB
Professor of Biochemistry and Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator
School of Biochemistry
University Walk
Bristol BS8 1TD
UK

I support this open letter and the work of LS on behalf of science, public health, and freedom of speech. It should be shocking that the scientific establishment is acting like the enemy of free speech and effective journalism.
Lydia M. Maniatis, PhD

I think that all work done with participation of Macchiarini must be carefully investigated. I am impressed by the multiple investigations on all possible levels which took place in Sweden and surprized that German Universities have not made adequate effort to investigate Macchiarini’s work, work of his co-authors, all relevant operations made using similar methods. It looks like Leonid is doing this job instead of Universities and other official organizations in Germany. I am not specialist in this field but I strongly support efforts of Leonid who is trying to investigate this story. I support the letter by Prof. Cantera’s letter.

I support Prof. Cantera’s letter. There needs to be transparency when it comes to ethical issues and you cannot just sweep the truth under the carpet. Punishing journalists who repeat open statements seems therefore totally inappropriate.
Prof Dr Melanie Blokesch,
EPFL SV GHI UPBLO
SV 3529 (Bâtiment SV)
Station 19
CH-1015 Lausanne
Switzerland

“STAP” has sapped the fight out of me for science integrity. But here, I make the extra effort to strongly support Leonid’s investigation into Paola Macchiarini trachea transplantation misdeeds. I also strongly support Professor Cantera’s open letter.

Professor Kenneth Lee
Chief of Developmental and Regenerative Biology
School of Biomedical Sciences
Chinese University of Hong Kong

While I recognize that I am not familiar with the German legal system, I feel that Schneider’s investigation on this issue has ended up in an unbalanced court decision. I may not share all Schneider’s opinions on other matters, but I support Prof. Cantera’s letter in relation to Schneider’s investigation.
Prof. Dr. Crisanto Gutierrez
Centro de Biologia Molecular Severo Ochoa
Madrid, Spain

It is extremely important that people be able to critically evaluate published data. I support the freedom of all scientists to participate in reasonable and rational post-publication peer review. The activity of the German courts described in this account is bizarre and certainly not in the public interest.

I support the freedom of the press and see a strong need to fully clarify this case.
Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Simon
Entwicklungsgenetik
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Universitätsstraße 1
40225 Düsseldorf, Germany

I fully support Dr Schneider in his quest for freedom of speech, open truthful reporting of research findings and in ethical practice in science.
Dr Paul A Hoskisson, Reader in Molecular Microbiology, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Science, University of Strathclyde, UK.

I am no expert on German law, but to my understanding Dr. Schneider has, as he has done in other cases of scientific misconduct, reported the facts as he found them. The court order presented here seems disproportionate. I support the letter above.

Dr. Remco Stam

Research Group Leader
Chair of Phytopathology
Technical University Munich

I strongly support the open letter of professor Cantera and I want to emphaze that the contribution of Leonid Schneider to the the scientific community is unvaluable.
SIGNED: Dr. Olivier Bastien,
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire Végétale, France

I stand with Cantera’s letter and support Schneider work against fraudulent research that is undermining public trust on Science and it is a form of public corruption.
Alfredo Caro-Maldonado
Marie Curie Fellow at CICbioGUNE institute.
Spain

I substantially disagree with the open letter. I do not believe that the court trial in Bavaria was plotted against Leonid Schneider, intending to punish him for his investigations. However, I am surprised that legal means are taken against Leonid Schneider for apparently pointing out previous reports by Bernhard Albrecht.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jürgen Kleine-Vehn
Institute of Applied Genetics and Cell Biology (IAGZ)
Muthgasse 18
1190 Wien

I support this open letter and Leonid Schneiders work. We as patiënts need more critical academics who stand up for better science and integrity.
Marga van Amersfoort,
President SVS (non profit organization for >4700 women who got sick due to silicone breast implants)
Netherlands

Although court injunctions are a lawful instrument, I think that they can be misused too easily. In this case they certainly have been and it is used to harass someone practices internet journalism. Apparently they feel threatened by this, which is surprising, since the two people, the Walleses, are in a position of much greater power than a journalist reporting on scientific misconduct. I thus think this is a blatant misuse of power and should stop
Kasper van Gelderen,
Post-Doc,
Utrecht University

I support the open letter and the important work by Leonid for integrity in science.
Mauro Sylos Labini
Associate professor of Economic Policy
Department of Political Science – University of Pisa, Italy

I wish to add my name to Professor Rafael Cantera’s letter in support of Leonid Schneider’s investigative reporting concerning trachea transplants conducted in Germany and elsewhere. These experimental procedures — and the many ethical, legal, and scientific issues they raise — need to be subjected to careful and critical scrutiny and public debate. Silencing or attempting to silence investigators and critics does not serve the public interest.

I am an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota. I write as an individual faculty member and not on behalf of my academic institution.

We need total transparency in science.
I enthusiastically support every researcher that seeks honesty and transparency in research.
Manuel Castellano PhD
Institute of Bioengineering
Miguel Hernández University (Spain)

I fully support the open letter of professor Rafael Cantera.We need people like Leonid Schneider who fight for transparency and integrity in science.
Cornelius Berger
Post-doctoral researcher
Laboratory for industrial chemistry
Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Post navigation

If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!